I wouldn't make a PC enchant it as a double weapon. It doesn't use the double weapon abilities. It truly is a crappy weapon any way you slice it even with enhancements. That -4 to hit with proficiency is a killer. If they had made it a -2 it would have been reasonable putting it in line with rapid shot. Even if it didn't have any penalty it wouldn't be overpowered since it takes so long to reload.

It was one of the better weapons in 3.5 though, imo.

When you enchanted it with splitting, and then explosive, it was a 4 shot rocket launcher. Though nowhere close to bows still, but within crossbow class.

Don't think you need to use quarterstaff enchanting unless it says so specifically, like, you can't enchant each end of a spear.

Double-crossbow is the Manyshot variant of crossbows, which is why it also gives a -4 to firing. Safest bet is to treat it as manyshot, full weapon property per arrow, save precision damage, because that's specifically left out.

This should allow the alchemist to wield two greatswords as op asked.
We all know an eidolon can do that, and so can a synthesist. It's two weapons, that get maximum penalty out of TWF.

But, if you think back to 3.5, the Dragon Magazine's, you might remember a race called Dipsid, in issue #267, january 2000. They are an insect/human race with four arms as their key feature, and mention this to make it clear.

"A diopsid can wield a pair of two-handed weapons by using all four of its limbs. The diopsid gains the full benefits of wielding a two-handed weapon, such as 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus on damage rolls. The diopsid suffers the standard penalty for fighting with two weapons and carrying a non-light weapon in its off hand. "

Just worth noting that it's been done, that the Summoner can do this, so why not the alchemist that spends two discoveries, who are harder to come by than 2 evolution point(2 pt gives 2 additional arms and hands).

A paladins god might actually approve, as an evil character in the company of a paladin is less likely to sin.

This is an *ideal* work-around solution. The paladin's knightly heirarchy, leige-lord, church and / or *god* have told him flat out, "Keep an eye on this guy. He's shifty, but maybe he can be saved, and, if not, try and keep him alive until he's helped us defeat the Lich-King."

If the Paladin has orders from on high (or, way, way On High) to group with this particular scum-bag, then it turns into one of those buddy-cop movies where one of them is the straight-arrow law and order type (perhaps a few days from retirement and getting 'too old for this...') and the other is the morally ambiguous dirty cop hand-cuffed to him because nobody trusts him and Internal Investigations has a file on him the size of a cinderblock.

Orders straight from Iomedae trump 'code of conduct.'

Well, the other solution is using the code against the ode.

The paladin cannot strike down an evil character without witnessing an evil deed against innocents, as he is first and foremost bound by law.

Killing in self defense will be allowed anywhere more or less. Killing a guy because he hurt someone, rather than restraining him for the city watch, is against the law(in most places).

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."

While frowned upon, it actually does not hinder you in teaming up with an evil alignment character that doesn't play Evil Stupid.

A paladins god might actually approve, as an evil character in the company of a paladin is less likely to sin. Remember that if the paladin decides to smite him without witnessing an evil act, he himself will be the sinner and loose his class abilities. It's not all that set in stone, and it helps when the player and gm co-operate.

So, I'm playing an Artificer themed Alchemist, and this fun idea brewed in my head.

The Imp Familiar is in Bestiary 3, p229, the Rakshasa, Raktavarna.
It stays in the form of any object, and can become any weapon, using the Tumour Familiar as the base, this means I'd be able to pull out any weapon out of my body. Proficency is an issue as an alchemist, which is where Intelligent Item comes, adding the Proficient Ability, making it possible to change weapon at will.

The other reason is, so it can be enhanced normally as well.
Default it's a creature, but stays all the time in object form. So it's not that different. Fluffwise, it could be another creature than Rakshasa, Raktavarna, it could be a homunculus of sorts.

So, got a player arguing his point across that ER should count against environmental damage, as he found himself in Land of the Linnorm Kings, and he happens to have Cold Resistance from being Aasimar.

Now, my problem with that is, that for one, environment damage is untyped, and is not a direct energy attack, which is what Energy Resistance applies against. Just as DR applies against attacks, and not falling damage.

The second problem is that ER5(basic one) makes a person immune to cold environment, as cold enviroment deals 1d6, making you maximally take 1 non-lethal point of damage, which is healed up in an hour at a rate of 1 non-lethal point per class/hit die level.

That makes Cold/Fire/Acid subtype not needed to survive a denizens environment, as ER10 will defend them, without slapping on a vurnability.

It's not a typo either, as both ER and DR specify attacks, where immunity from subtype mentions conditions, effects, and so on.

It already exists... after a fashion. Pathfinder society field guide has a fighter archetype. Your feat is more powerful than the class feature

Quote:

Know Thy Enemy (Ex): At 7th level, a lore warden can take a standard action to study a specific target in sight. He must make a Knowledge check to determine the target’s abilities and weaknesses as part of this standard action. If successful, the lore warden not only notes the appropriate abilities and weaknesses, as detailed under the Knowledge
skill on page 100 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, but also gains a +2 competence bonus on all attack rolls and weapon damage rolls made against that enemy. Note that this bonus on attack and damage rolls applies only to that specific creature. This bonus lasts for the duration
of an encounter, or until the lore warden attempts a new Knowledge check to use this ability on a different target. This ability replaces armor training 2.

Not to mention it lasts longer than Snake Style, which lets you use Sense Motive as AC vs one attack. Which arguably fits what Holmes fought like.

Well, concept wise, both excel at hunting specific targets. Spell breaker or witch hunter archetypes for inquisitor make him especially good at taking down heretics and spell casters.

Conceptwise; Could it be something along lines of the inquisitor hunting down a very elusive heretic, after a while, he tracks him down, and beats him down, but learns that his methods aren't especially effective. At the same time, he teamed up with a Red Mantis rookie, who was a frightful close quarter fighter, tearing down enemies both in frontline fight, as well as from the shadows (sneak attack), which fit the inquisitor very well, as he enjoyed teamwork (sneak attack flanking).

Or something like that, either way, both are essentially humanoid hunters. The inquisitor's bane ability mixes nicely up with sneak attack as well.

Human would be a good choice, there's lots of feats required to become one.

"If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it--the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size."

Note the word crush is used, and not explode or any other verb or adjective.

So by strictly following the wording, you could do it.

I think the crush line referes to using this offensively, like enlarging someone inside a cage, they either break out, or the spell doesn't work, but they don't get crushed by suddenly becoming too big for the enviroment..

On the other hand "Make a Strength check to burst any enclosures in the process." That I'd rule as sploding whatever ate a player.

mpl... you may be right, I suppose it is "min-maxing" that I think really affects creating highly capable and interesting multi-faceted characters.

I guess I thought "min-maxing" was just a derogatory term for "optimizing." Perhaps there is a subtlety there that I've been missing...

I certainly think the fighter Weables posted above your post could be role played in a huge variety of ways, but I had thought a 15 point buy was "standard fantasy" which is what all of my groups use. a 20 point buy certainly improves your bargaining position somewhat.

Dunno bout you guys, but if you go to WoTC Character Optimization forums, you will find any and every min-max shenanigan there is. That's why I think Adamantine Dragon, much as me, took this as such an attempt.

I guess I had a different interpretation of the rules listed under "Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repertoire" in the Magic section:

"A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time she attains a new level in her class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: Bard Spells Known or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list she now knows. With permission from the GM, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they come across while adventuring."

The PRD specifically stated under the wizard that he could perform spell research, as well as under the divine casters section. Not so under the Sorcerer and Bard. Unless there were errata listed somewhere I was not aware. It's good to know how other people see it because if the bard and sorcerer can research then they're not as pinned down as I thought.

Think it's mostly because of their ability to scribe spells into their spellbook, which bard and sorcerer do not possess ability to use.

On the other hand, the Magic Chapter text allows using Independent Research for any arcane or divine caster. Though your quote says "select spells they gain fron new and unusual spells they come across." that could be read as "from spell researched" spells I suppose.

Although that would be a good way to escape for a bit assuming they didn't make the plane permanent. 17+ days of security where no one can get to you on a plane that resembles the Bahamas. Of course a mage with no magic is just an old man.

Edit: it is, however, a great way to protect the mcguffin for half a month or more.

It's a decent solution if you want to imprison someone or you feel you're a threat to others, and solitude yourself.

Fun Combo:
Clone yourself via the spell. Take someone with you to the plane. Make the plane permanent or change time dilution so years pass inside while hours outside if you really dislike them. Kill yourself with a spoon to get out of there as there is no "need to be on same place" restrictions on clone.

Voila, you got a prison that can only be broken by Deities, Artifacts, and in our games, wish. Also no saves if you trick the target to willingly come with you, say, by promises of wealth and treasure or a magic library?

Deities yes. Wish and artifacts, no unless you house rule otherwise.

Just include a one way portal placed horizontally above a large body of water and you've got the perfect prison plane. Drop them in and forget about it.

I keep wondering if we're reading the same anti-magic field.

Deities and Artifacts yes. Wish we can just disagree on because we don't agree on which text trumps which.

I can't stop giggling about how I've been watching this thread all week in anticipation of SKR coming in and bringing light and wisdom to this conundrum, then finally seeing his name here and then discovering that he didn't answer the question.

Although that would be a good way to escape for a bit assuming they didn't make the plane permanent. 17+ days of security where no one can get to you on a plane that resembles the Bahamas. Of course a mage with no magic is just an old man.

Edit: it is, however, a great way to protect the mcguffin for half a month or more.

It's a decent solution if you want to imprison someone or you feel you're a threat to others, and solitude yourself.

Fun Combo:
Clone yourself via the spell. Take someone with you to the plane. Make the plane permanent or change time dilution so years pass inside while hours outside if you really dislike them. Kill yourself with a spoon to get out of there as there is no "need to be on same place" restrictions on clone.

Voila, you got a prison that can only be broken by Deities, Artifacts, and in our games, wish. Also no saves if you trick the target to willingly come with you, say, by promises of wealth and treasure or a magic library?

I am going to go crazy with Pathfinder. They changed such little stuff--stuff I've never thought to bother looking at. People in 3rd edition always tried to claim you could forego or auto-fail rolls, and I was correct then when I said you couldn't.

PH 3.5, page 177:

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf ’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

Thanks for making me feel dumb ;)

Have any insight on whether Burning Disarm involves the object saving before the character holding it does? Tyki11's argument about where the parenthesis are is compelling, though, I'm not totally convinced.

Not trying to state how you should use it, use it any way you prefer.

Just saying how I read it.

And I didn't really notice the difference until Thunder Fire was mentioned. But there's a clear distiction in how they used (object, see text) & (object), see text. One called specifically for two saves, other for one, the followed up with a text.

I can't complain though, I learned something new today :D
Will saves for objects is most common. And a spell can both have object save and character save.

Nothing in the quote states that a permanent planar portal can't be established after the fact.

The fact that you can't throw a spell 'inside' does.

"Alternatively, when cast within your demiplane, you may add (or remove) one of the following features to your demiplane with each casting of the spell, in which case it has an instantaneous duration."

You need to be inside to add a portal feature using Create Demiplane.
You can't cast inside.

Your last sentence would apply perfectly if it weren't for the "another spell" clause that mentions nothing about teleportation. All it mentions is moving in or out, which Wish is doing.

In terms to Su's, I'm assuming that's not the entirety of the Dead Magic description. Otherwise, as written, it's not an antimagic area. It's simply an area immune to divination, teleport and transport spells.

As written, it does.

" A plane with the dead magic trait functions in all respects like an antimagic field spell."

But I think all's been said unless someone much savvier in the rules has some input. We always played as specific text trumping general rule, which is what Wish teleporting into Anti-magic is, as written.

If there is no magic in an area than there is no magic. It's like trying to swim in the desert. You can go through the motions be they backstroke or doggpaddle, but nothing will really happen. Similarily you can swim until you reach the beach, but then you cant. No water = no swiming. No magic zone = no spellcasting.

Except using Wish would be like creating a field of water surrounding you that lets you swim in the desert.

Note that if you make a portal before dead magic, it stays fine. So a magic effect can survive there. On the other hand, Wish is instant effect with a clause, it doesn't use the magic within the zone it's teleporting to, but from, which is why I can't argue that it wouldn't work to throw inside.

"Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field."
'Certain spells'. That leaves it open for allowing Wish to get in.

"Summoned creatures of any type wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away." Sounds like you can get inside the field before you fully disappear if summoned.

On the other hand.
"A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions." Wish specifies to disregard any current effects at the place to be teleported to. Antimagic has exceptions. Why they didn't add "except for a plane with Dead Magic trait." is beyond me.

Not too far fetched to imagine the Wish poke a hole in the field, throw you in, and leave you there like a bag of puppies. Now, I can't and won't argue about throwing wish inside the field, that's just not gonna happen.

On the other hand, when you swap out spells know when leveling, you can dump it, then take it later on again.

Also, sidenote, general cost for making spells in this way is 1.000gp and 1 week per spell level. Tho if more fancy or powerful, like Wish or Create Demiplane, it might cost more, take longer, or require special materials or tomes.

As I've said, I'm just interested in the intent and mindset as to why the crafting abilities are the way they are. What was in their head? Did they originally envision the crafter being an occasional tinkerer or the mad Wizard locked in his tower coming up with god-knows-what? I know both are possible per the rules but it is that way through various permutations of ideas over time. I'm just curious to know where it started and how it evolved and how they see it working with the world at large. I would love to sit down with a dev/designer/whoever and have even just a 10 minute one-on-one about it but that's not practical so I made this thread.

You're all missing the point. I and others have made our own statements about crafting feats and the WBL table. But all such assessements of crafting feats and the WBL table are house assessements because from what I can see. the WBL table was not constructed with ANY FEATS IN MIND. The WBL table is a GENERALISED target that was designed for creating characters above first level and it's simply this.... this is the target for the value of stuff characters should have on them before you throw them into your first encounter. The table includes no discussion on crafting feats, heirloom traits, or any of that other stuff. It's essentially up to the DM to decide how it works out.

Personally I feel that both extremes of how to apply crafting feats are valid approaches as is the spectrum between. If you want to allow crafters to double their WBL.... go for it. If you want to say that they have no impact. BOTH ANSWERS ARE CORRECT.

The one thing that really matters is that all players share the shine time equally. No one is stuck being a wallflower.

Since allowing crafting to double one's wealth risks having one player tend to hog all the shine time, its generally a bad idea and cheating. That doesn't mean that its always a bad idea. A 10th level character using 5k of his gold to build a 10k item which...

Again, assuming that a crafter that will use his money explicitly to double his amount of wealth is a fearful assumption that's not a good thing to base anything on. He might use 10%, or 25% of his gold to make stuff. Locking down the whole thing because some ass out there might abuse it is like locking down barbarian or fighter because some asses have min-maxed them to the level of stupid.

You should assume the player won't abuse it, just get something out of it. And then assume that his DM will keep his hands on reins and keep things under control, slapping on a limit of his own if it comes down to that.

50% of starting gold for crafting in my games as example. Since the crafter spent all his feats on making stuff, he never really shines in combat because he got a +2 bonus to saves earlier than our ninja who is a menace both in and out of combat.

Not really...a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw. An object can not.

Well, then, it's settled. Burning Disarm causes the item to make a Reflex save to negate the effect, which it cannot forego. If the save fails, then the creature holding the item can make a Reflex save to drop the weapon (if they want to) or take crappy damage.

Cool, settled. Thank you.

If that does it for you, goodie good.

I know a bunch of people on the other hand that won't slap an additional save on a so-so spell just cause they think they can.

Fluffwise, I get the idea.
Mechanically, it sounds very much like an easier way to bypass needing rolling saves.

I suppose you could adapt the Ray Shield feat that Stabbitty linked and make it work with flat, bladed weapons such as swords. Anything else would almost have to be a new chain of feats or a specific spellbreaker archetype.

Which is why you should handle it as it says, you do not gain it as a class feature. Nowhere does it say you replace it, or remove it, just not gain, that leave it bit open to "you can have this if you don't have Still Mind, but if you have Still Mind, you have to drop it."

This is where I say you must reasonably use the Market Value. a +1 long sword that was crafted, commissioned, or found, is still a +1 long sword and it's actual value doesn't change. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use any value other than Market Value to determine wealth. Why would the devs assume that it should be any other way? How else would you figure out the wealth of a character? I don't track every gp the PCs ever get, and I doubt any GM does.

Points to gunslinger, again.

I simply cannot fathom how you can say this and what you did earlier about the blunderbuss. "Therefore it doesn't make sense to use any value other than Market Value to determine wealth." The blunderbuss has a market value of 2k gp. All other classes buy their weapons. The gunslinger gets this for free.

This will probably get ignored, followed by the line "he can sell it for 4d10". Which magically reduces the market value.

Why would he sell his class feature? Would you expect the wizard to sell his spellbook and bonded item? These characters would then be without the ability to function in their classes.

A fighters sword is his class feature, a fighter without a sword is just as useless as a wizard without his spell book or the gunslinger without his crappy gun, don't see people reducing their wbl because he'll never sell it.

But hey, if you think that adding a "no one but you can use it" clause to an item makes it okey for you to ignore wbl, then that's a simple solution to pre-game crafting.

This is where I say you must reasonably use the Market Value. a +1 long sword that was crafted, commissioned, or found, is still a +1 long sword and it's actual value doesn't change. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use any value other than Market Value to determine wealth. Why would the devs assume that it should be any other way? How else would you figure out the wealth of a character? I don't track every gp the PCs ever get, and I doubt any GM does.

Points to gunslinger, again.

I simply cannot fathom how you can say this and what you did earlier about the blunderbuss. "Therefore it doesn't make sense to use any value other than Market Value to determine wealth." The blunderbuss has a market value of 2k gp. All other classes buy their weapons. The gunslinger gets this for free.

This will probably get ignored, followed by the line "he can sell it for 4d10". Which magically reduces the market value.

Well, tell your gm that mixed spell list isn't that bad.
Alchemist has both Cure Wounds spells, which usually are divine type.
As well as Identify, which almost only arcane casters got as far as I know.

Paying 1.000gp or more for a spell really isn't that bad, it's not much different than buying a wonderous item. You still have to spend spell slots and spells known on it.